Answer:
The North American fur trade, an aspect of the international fur trade, was the acquisition, trade, exchange, and sale of animal furs in North America. Aboriginal peoples and Native Americans of various regions of the present-day countries of Canada and the United States traded among themselves in the pre–Columbian Era. Europeans participated in the trade from the time of their arrival to Turtle Island, commonly referenced as the New World, extending the trade's reach to Europe. The French started trading in the 16th century, the English established trading posts on Hudson Bay in present-day Canada during the 17th century, while the Dutch had trade by the same time in New Netherland. The North American fur trade reached its peak of economic importance in the 19th century, and involved the development of elaborate trade-networks.
The fur trade became one of the main economic ventures in North America, attracting competition among the French, British, Dutch, Spanish, Swedes and Russians. Indeed, in the early history of the United States, capitalizing on this trade, and removing the British stranglehold over it, was seen[by whom?] as a major economic objective. Many Native American societies across the continent came to depend on the fur trade[when?] as their primary source of income. By the mid-1800s changing fashions in Europe brought about a collapse in fur prices. The American Fur Company and some other companies failed. Many Native communities were plunged into long-term poverty and consequently lost much of the political influence they once had.
Explanation:
Answer: The domestic slave trade, also known as the Second Middle Passage and the interregional slave trade, was the term for the domestic trade of slaves within the United States that reallocated slaves across states during the antebellum period.
Hope this helps :)
Answer:
I mean debate can encourage new laws but if you have one side wishing for laws and the other against it. It will usually slow legislation which is entirely the purpose. But it depends on what view are you taking it from because th end result can be no legislation at all or even a relaxation of legislation in fact that's happened in some states. So it depends on the view and narrative you wish to push. because it can be a semblance of all but B. If you're a centrist you'd probably say this debate will encourage new laws but the whole point of not wishing for infringements upon one's rights means no new laws. If you wanted new laws then this debate is a waste of time but you're angering a large portion of the population because you seek not to listen to the statistics and thereby information one may have that may dissuade from the legislation. And if you look at D it can be so. If 2 cannot agree then rights will not be infringed upon. Unless the side with more representatives that disagrees with the right then such laws will be enacted. Yes, they can place new restrictions and there you can make the case it's unconstitutional and etc because well there is ground and a foundation laid upon there. But as far as an actual thing it'd be A I suppose. But I'd question the teacher because it depends on how one views a division. It can be either cooperative relationships that can be mended or an all or nothing if it's not my way then we will have conflict and it shall erupt. It all depends.
Explanation:
<span>English settlements in the west indies had the greatest influence upon the development of the mainland colonies of </span>Carolinas
